MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590545872

What is hidradenitis suppurativa?

2017· article· en· W2590545872 on OpenAlexaff
Erika Yue Lee, Raed Alhusayen, Perla Lansang, Neil H. Shear, Jensen Yeung

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHidradenitis Suppurativa and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHidradenitis suppurativaMedicineDermatologyDiseaseSpondyloarthropathyAbscessInflammatory bowel diseasePathologySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To provide family physicians with an understanding of the epidemiology, clinical features, diagnosis, and management of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). SOURCES OF INFORMATION: . MAIN MESSAGE: Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic, recurrent, and debilitating skin condition. It is an inflammatory disorder of the follicular epithelium, but secondary bacterial infection can often occur. The diagnosis is made clinically based on typical lesions (nodules, abscesses, sinus tracts), locations (skin folds), and nature of relapses and chronicity. Multiple comorbidities are associated with HS, including obesity, metabolic syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, and spondyloarthropathy. Although the lack of curative therapy and the recurrent nature makes HS treatment challenging, there are effective symptomatic management options. CONCLUSION: Family physicians should be suspicious of HS in patients presenting with recurrent skin abscesses at the skin folds. Family physicians play an important role in early diagnosis, initiation of treatment, and referral to a dermatologist before HS progresses to debilitating end-stage disease.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHidradenitis Suppurativa and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207